Thank you, Llywydd. The purpose of group 4's amendments is to ensure that any appointments made under section 6, the removal or appointment of an officer of a registered social landlord, and section 8, the appointment of a manager of a registered social landlord, end when the relevant requirement is complied with, or the relevant failure is remedied. Under these sections, an officer can be appointed to ensure compliance with a requirement imposed by or under an enactment, and a manager can be appointed when the Welsh Ministers are satisfied that the RSL has failed to comply with the requirement imposed by or under an enactment.

During the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee's scrutiny—and I should have mentioned earlier that I'm a member of that committee, though I think that fact is fairly well known—we asked the Minister whether consideration had been given to including provisions in sections 6 and 8 of the Bill regarding limiting the time for which an officer or a manager of an RSL are appointed by the Welsh Ministers where there's been a failure to comply with an enactment. We also queried whether it would be clearer to state that any appointments made under sections 6 or 8 of the Bill will end when the relevant requirement is complied with or the relevant failure has been remedied to the satisfaction of Welsh Ministers. In a letter of response to the CLAC report, the Minister argued that this recommendation, and I quote,

'would not allow for a transition period in which the officer would remain in post while...the Welsh Ministers satisfied themselves that the RSL was now capable of operating without the officer’s assistance.'

Additionally, in Stage 2, the Minister argued that this amendment would remove the flexibility to have a transition period in which the officer or the manager would remain in post after the breach had been remedied. The Minister specifically said that, and I quote,

'It's often the case that there is further input required, for example, while Welsh Ministers monitor whether an RSL can sustain its improvement.'

Now, I've got some sympathy with what the Government's trying to do, but I think in terms of clarity, it would be better to have a different approach. Directives would only be issued in rare and challenging circumstances, and so one would presume that Welsh Ministers would want an appointment to stay in place until they were beyond reasonable doubt that the issue has been rectified. So, I don't see why you quite have this need to talk about transition periods. Under this amendment, the appointment would still be at the discretion of the Welsh Ministers, who'd be obliged to end it when the failure was remedied or the requirement was complied with to their satisfaction, and, basically, this is just drafting the law more tightly, in a clearer definition, and it achieves the same intent.

It would require the Welsh Minister to monitor the RSL for a period to ensure that they are satisfied. I agree that things have to be sustained. You can't just say 'Right, you've reached the required standard,' but the bell rings and, therefore, the requirement drops away. It's obviously got to be sustained, and I think that all that can be catered for in our clearer amendment. I so move.